Using Unearthed Arcana defense bonuses in Pathfinder.

[Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert]

Link.

These are balanced for 3.5, and since I rarely played anything that wasn't a full BAB class in light armor in 3.5 (Pathfinder has dragged me out of this habit and showed me the light of other options), I can't really speak for the differences between how much magical protection a 3.5 character typically has and how much a Pathfinder character typically has. Is there a significant difference? Do the values for these defense bonuses need to be changed?

[cranewings]

I can't really speak for that. I've found my method very balanced - increasing power level slightly.

Characters of all classes gain +1 AC and CMD at every even level whenever they are allowed their Dex bonus. Personally, I don't allow magical bonuses to exceed +1. This way, magic is still around, armor is still around, and high level unarmored characters are hard to hit for low level characters, but armor is still important.

[Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert]

This world has firearms as the primary weapon. Armor isn't keeping out bullets fired by the types of guns that are available.

[cranewings]

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

This world has firearms as the primary weapon. Armor isn't keeping out bullets fired by the types of guns that are available.

Yeah, but what if someone puts on armor anyway? Then you have to deal with the wonkiness of it not contributing even when someone tries to hit them with the butt of the rifle.

The answer isn't in bumping up inborn defense in place of armor, but in giving situational modifiers to AC that are greater than the book normally allows.

In my house rules, I grant a +4 to strike when a shooter takes a full round attack action, even if he only has one shot per round, and he hasn't been attacked sense his last turn. This is in addition to most weapons ignoring most armor in their first range increment.

Less than 50% cover grants +4 AC. Greater than 50% cover grants +8 AC. Total cover grants +12, though you can't fire back unless it was designed for combat - like murder holes. Shooting back at the attacker is important because it negates his +4 bonus to strike.

These rules get characters acting like they are in a gun fight.

[kyrt-ryder]

I would personally suggest moving the Cleric down to Column C and the Monk up to Column B but otherwise it should work out fairly well.

Incidentally, I should note that unless you're dealing with supersonic bullets, traditional armor works quite well (and even supersonic bullets would be dampened by it to some degree, though they may get a special [-2 reduction to Armor or Natural armor] type factor.)

[Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I would personally suggest moving the Cleric down to Column C and the Monk up to Column B but otherwise it should work out fairly well.

Incidentally, I should note that unless you're dealing with supersonic bullets, traditional armor works quite well (and even supersonic bullets would be dampened by it to some degree, though they may get a special [-2 reduction to Armor or Natural armor] type factor.)

The bullets are supersonic. They are conical, as well, and the weapons are rifled. Think 1890s in term of power. That'll punch right through full plate.

[Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert]

cranewings wrote:

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

This world has firearms as the primary weapon. Armor isn't keeping out bullets fired by the types of guns that are available.

Yeah, but what if someone puts on armor anyway? Then you have to deal with the wonkiness of it not contributing even when someone tries to hit them with the butt of the rifle.

The answer isn't in bumping up inborn defense in place of armor, but in giving situational modifiers to AC that are greater than the book normally allows.

In my house rules, I grant a +4 to strike when a shooter takes a full round attack action, even if he only has one shot per round, and he hasn't been attacked sense his last turn. This is in addition to most weapons ignoring most armor in their first range increment.

Less than 50% cover grants +4 AC. Greater than 50% cover grants +8 AC. Total cover grants +12, though you can't fire back unless it was designed for combat - like murder holes. Shooting back at the attacker is important because it negates his +4 bonus to strike.

These rules get characters acting like they are in a gun fight.

How about giving guns their own damage type (ballistic) and ruling that armor isn't effective against ballistic damage? Then a rifle butt will still be turned aside, but do to the rarity of melee combat and disadvantages, rarity, and expense of armor nobody will want armor.

The other factors are already being handled by using D20 Modern as inspiration for gun mechanics.

[kyrt-ryder]

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I would personally suggest moving the Cleric down to Column C and the Monk up to Column B but otherwise it should work out fairly well.

Incidentally, I should note that unless you're dealing with supersonic bullets, traditional armor works quite well (and even supersonic bullets would be dampened by it to some degree, though they may get a special [-2 reduction to Armor or Natural armor] type factor.)

The bullets are supersonic. They are conical, as well, and the weapons are rifled. Think 1890s in term of power. That'll punch right through full plate.

Not much moreso than crossbow quarrels :P Like I said a +2 bonus against armor or natural armor would do the job (completely invalidating Padded Leather and Leather armor) +3 would invalidate studded leather.

In the end it's totally your call and there's nothing wrong with it, just providing my perspective.

[Talonhawke]

I use these Kelsey and combine them with the PF armor as DR rules where its one or the other this has not only help some players concepts but also keeps the fact that i use the guns everywhere rules in a bit of balance.